not giving the public its money's worth

Review

Ombudsman's office in the Cooks not giving the public its money's worth

By Florence Syme- Buchanan

The Cook Islands Ombudsman’s Office has been reviewed and closely

examined following

widespread public criticism and con cern levelled over what it costs com pared to what it achieves each year.

The examination, by the government appointed and powerful Public Expenditure Review Committee has pro duced a report which suggests the country isn’t getting its money’s worth.

In light of this and the economic cli mate, PERCA has recommended changing the Ombudsman Act to provide an option that the Ombudsman be paid only for time taken to investigate complaints received and to report to parliament. The PERCA report is concerned only with the opera tions of the Ombudsman’s Office from 1992, when it was taken over by Henry Brown, former deputy public service com missioner. His term of office expires in 1999 and the ombudsman cannot be removed except for serious breach of legis lation. Since 1995 Brown has failed to make any reports to parliament, as required by law. His excuse - the office did not have access to a computer “This is considered unacceptable. There are other options available - using the ser vices of a public typist, or approaching other departments for assistance,” stated the PERCA report. Those cases investigat ed within its jurisdiction gave the office an average of one case per month during Brown’s first 12 month term and less than one case a month between 1993 to 1994.

Total cost of maintaining the office during this time amounted to SNZ2O9,IOB(SUS 113,403). The only test of output from this office is the annual report,” states PERCA. And because reports covering the 1995 - 1997 period have not been tabled it has been difficult to verify the number of cases Brown claims to have investigated.

PERCA confirmed that between 1996

to 1997 no cases were investigated and no report was prepared by the ombudsman office, which for several months had no electricity, telephone or facsimile. During

this time the ombudsman continued to receive his total salary of $NZ55,519(5U530,109) . In its conclu sions, the committee makes several points

- the first being despite the small caseload, the position needs to be retained because of the Constitutional role it fulfils.

In an official statement to the chairman of PERCA Mike Mitchell, and now attached to the report, ombudsman Brown said the independence of the office would

be questioned and investigations preju

diced if staff from another ministry were able to access confidential documents.

“There is nowhere in the world and in the fraternity of the office of the ombuds man where the activities of the ombuds man has been shared with other govern ment activities,” wrote Brown. Brown feels amending the Act would be viewed within the region as a “deliberate attempt by vested interest groups to reduce the authority of the ombudsman’s office”. Or it could be viewed as a matter of a laugh ing stock by other countries. We either have an ombudsman’s office or none at all,” said Brown. In an earlier interview.

Brown said 80 percent of the work done by the office is purely advisory as com plainants “refuse to put things in black and white and provide documents to support their case.” The position of ombudsman is one of the highest paid in the country. The Ombudsman’s Act provides that his salary should be fixed by an Order in Council and his travelling allowance should be equal to that of cabinet ministers under the Civil List Act.

There appears to be a departure from the Act in the Ombudsman’s remuneration - while it does fix an annual salary, it goes further and pays an annual non-taxable allowance of $lO,OOO. Perks include first class return air tickets for the ombudsman, his wife and one other member of his fam ily to New Zealand to spend part of his 20 days leave holidaying there. If first class seats are not available, the ombudsman is entitled to business class seats. But Brown complained in his statement that he hasn’t been able to take up this entitlement because of funding constraints. There’s also a car - imported duty free - provided by government which also foots mainte nance, repairs and running costs. The ombudsman’s salary has the advantage of being entitled to cost of living adjustments provided to public servants and including any adjustments made to the salaries of members of parliament.

The ombudsman office has had bud getary problems since the Cook’s econom ic decline forcing two staff into redundan

cy during the government cutbacks. The two staff weren’t paid for six months prior to losing their jobs and are taking legal action over the matter. Their termination may be why Brown failed to conduct any investigations last year as the ombudsman had said he definitely can’t cope with the work load without two extra staff. The National Development Council which reviewed the first budget figures last year recommended that the office of the ombudsman undergo big cuts.

Statutory bodies each have their own

C isMi TO );!; mn*. TOry ; ■ v■ e; ■ ' : ■■ ■ ■ nu 1< ft I lift;! whether its conclusions are ever taken up by Cabinet remains to be seen. ■