watchdog

News Extra

Public watchdog lacks teeth

THE establishment of the Public \ Expenditure Review Committee by the Cook Islands Government in 1996 set up a statuto ry body with the power to investigate any aspect of public expenditure that concerned people.

To date, PERC seems to be an effec tive watchdog of public monies. But what’s become apparent is that while to a large extent the committee is powerful, it lacks legislation to make the Government answerable to its recommendations fol lowing investigations into expenditure of public funds.

It’s too early to tell yet, says chairman Mike Mitchell whether PERC will fulfil public expectations and get “responsible reactions” from the Government on mat ters they’ve investigated involving tax payers’ dollars.

This after completing six extensive investigations on how public money has been spent, all of which have been tabled in Parliament, but none debated by the country’s politicians. PERC has 12 others on its agenda to complete. PERC legisla tion is unique in the Pacific, if not the world. But criticism that it lacks clout could be well founded.

There’s no way PERC can compel the Government to respond to its reports and recommendations. Mitchell admits this leaves them in danger of joining countless others which have never been actioned on dusty bureaucratic shelves.

Neither can the financial watchdog summon any Parliamentarian to supply information on any investigation involv ing public monies and expenditure.

Neither can it publicly release its reports without these first being tabled in Parliament. Until the first week of July, the Cook Islands Parliament had sat for only 20 days this year and this meant

delays in getting reports out to the public. An amendment to PERC legis lation would allow reports to be released once they’ve been handed to the Speaker of Parliament. But this was deferred by Cabinet some months ago and it’s understood Cabinet con tinues to ignore the submission.

Mitchell said this was “frustrating” for a number of reasons, “because we have to keep saying ‘no’ to the media and particularly when we want the public to know what we are doing.”

Denying the media and public access to reports is not in keeping with the Government’s transparency and

accountability policies, said Mitchell.

He related this to the Government’s budget process and the closed door meetings of the National Development Council, to which the media have been denied access.

“What harm would it do to have the deliberations of the council reported so that the public know what is hap pening?”

So, what’s the point of PERC?

“It’s one of the levers of the reform process because it brings to light mat ters which the committee feels are of public concern in matters of public expenditure and which they feel Parliament ought to know about, so we report to Parliament,” said Mitchell.

“Then it’s up to the Government to decide whether it’s going to react, if at all, to the report.” Mitchell says if the Government is seen to ignore PERC reports, “this would be a mat ter they would have to face up to at the next elections” adding that it’s “probably too early to say if the

Government is ignoring reports.” Two reports, one on the sale of the of the Rarotongan Hotel and the other on the Ombudsman Office have been tabled in Parliament - months later neither has been debated. In July four others were tabled.

These included investigations into the now defunct Housing Corporation, sale of surplus govern ment stores and equipment, the clo sure of the Ministry of Works, Physical Planning and Environment and custody of stores and equipment at an incomplete state hotel.

Even the Opposition did not oppose the Government’s motion to defer debate on the reports, missing an opportunity to earn their salaries as a watchdog of government and inform the public of the reports’ findings.

Does Mitchell think it a pointless exercise?

“Frankly,” he repeats, “it’s too early to say whether this mechanism is going to be effective in bringing about responsible reaction to any par ticular matter that the public might expect to see happen. Ask me that half way through the next year ... that would be a good time to stand back and ask what we are achieving.”

Mitchell cautions that one mustn’t lose sight of who is the Government - “it’s not PERC.”

“I don’t believe it’s our role, or within our power to insist that the government do anything about our reports.” While some see this as a weakness of the committee, others caution that it would be undemocratic to give PERC more power than Parliament. ■