RNZ has drawn attention to a procedural motion in Parliament last week which “quietly marked one of the more significant constitutional changes of recent years”.
It dealt with the issue of how Parliament is funded.
The Notice of Motion from Leader of the House Louise Upston concerning the estimates (budgets) for the three officers of Parliament and the Parliamentary agencies lasted five minutes on Wednesday evening and flew under most people’s radars.
Part of the motion dealt with something that happens each year, when The House agrees on the recommended estimates for the officers of Parliament: the ombudsman, the Parliamentary commissioner for the environment, and the controller and auditor-general.
This procedure is followed because those watchdogs are not subject to the same process as normal government departments. The funding comes from the government budget, but is decided through a largely consensus-based select committee process rather than the minister of finance.
The big change is that this year, because of the Parliament Act passed last November, two other agencies were included in the motion: the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk.
The government’s power to determine funding for Parliament itself has been removed.
Parliament is responsible for scrutinising a governments performance.
But previously, a government could underfund Parliament to limit the scrutiny; reducing resources available to the opposition, and cutting support for public participation in the lawmaking process.
RNZ observed:
It is all admittedly a bit Parliament-nerdy, but it represents an important change to the balance between Parliament and the executive.
And:
Was this the most exciting thing to happen in the House this week? Probably not. But beneath the Parliamentary and financial jargon sits a significant constitutional milestone: the principle that Parliament should be able to scrutinise the government without the government controlling Parliament’s purse strings. For the first time, that principle is now formally reflected in the way Parliament funds itself.
But PoO had another interest in the RNZ report.
We were reminded of our patient wait for news from the Office of the Ombudsman of progress on the organisational rebalancing which is under way
We have previously reported on the announcement – on 5 February – of a new organisational structure, “which will be implemented in early April 2026”.
It is now May 18.
John Allen, the Chief Ombudsman, has avoided mention of “privatising” some of his office’s financial management, but he has said:
This procedure is followed because those watchdogs are not subject to the same process as normal government departments. The funding comes from the government budget, but is decided through a largely consensus-based select committee process rather than the minister of finance.
The big change is that this year, because of the Parliament Act passed last November, two other agencies were included in the motion: the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk.
The government’s power to determine funding for Parliament itself has been removed.
Parliament is responsible for scrutinising a governments performance.
But previously, a government could underfund Parliament to limit the scrutiny; reducing resources available to the opposition, and cutting support for public participation in the lawmaking process.
RNZ observed:
It is all admittedly a bit Parliament-nerdy, but it represents an important change to the balance between Parliament and the executive.
And:
Was this the most exciting thing to happen in the House this week? Probably not. But beneath the Parliamentary and financial jargon sits a significant constitutional milestone: the principle that Parliament should be able to scrutinise the government without the government controlling Parliament’s purse strings. For the first time, that principle is now formally reflected in the way Parliament funds itself.
But PoO had another interest in the RNZ report.
We were reminded of our patient wait for news from the Office of the Ombudsman of progress on the organisational rebalancing which is under way
We have previously reported on the announcement – on 5 February – of a new organisational structure, “which will be implemented in early April 2026”.
It is now May 18.
John Allen, the Chief Ombudsman, has avoided mention of “privatising” some of his office’s financial management, but he has said:
- The change centres on retaining an in-house team of five permanent staff, supported by an accountancy partner…We are intending to introduce specialist expertise to support our in-house team.
It issued a statement headed
PSA calls Ombudsman to mediation following move to disestablish jobs and outsource financial functions
The rebalancing – it seems – had hit a stumbling block.
Vote Ombudsmen in 2025/26 totalled $53.236 million. This consisted of:
• $52.659 million to investigate and resolve complaints and perform the other functions of the Office of the Ombudsman
• $577,000 for Ombudsman remuneration.
The whole of the Vote is committed to the investigation, resolution of complaints and the provision of advice relating to central and local government administrative actions, monitoring compliance with international conventions.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.