Down in Wellington our politicians are almost through the financial review season – that is the time of year when the leaders of every government body appear before one of the select committees to give an account of their stewardship over the past 12 months. These examinations are known as financial reviews although in practice they can – and do – cover the entire ambit of the organisation’s operations. The reports that result are more interesting than you may imagine.
A presentation of the financial situation is obligatory, but beyond this the chair and executives can explore pretty much any aspect of operations that they so choose. Usually, although not always, the picture that emerges in the opening stages of hearing is all sweetness and light. New strategies are being dreamed up, the fruits of previous ones are being reaped, and performance measures are being achieved, if not exceeded.
Unfortunately, at some point in the proceedings, the chair will invite Members to quiz the organisation’s representatives on what they have presented, or any other matters that may be on their minds. It is these pesky “other matters” that tend to throw pall over what would otherwise be jolly outing for all concerned. Most MPs on the committee can be trusted to have squirreled away one or more embarrassing little questions for review time; however the real pains in the neck are those opposition members who just happen to be the ex-minister of portfolio under whose umbrella the body sits.
At the present time these are mostly National Party types – they have names like Tony Ryall, Bill English, Lockwood Smith and Nick Smith – and the problem is that they know where all the skeletons are hidden. Indeed, they may well have been responsible for hiding them way back when. By contrast, the departmental bosses appearing before them may have only been in the job two minutes – turnover being what it is in the public service these days.
On these occasions it is no contest and the hapless executives are forced to concede that they have not come briefed on this matter or that, promise to provide the answers sought in writing at the earliest opportunity, offer grovelling apologies, and beat hasty retreat all the while wondering how such glorious day had suddenly become so stormy. On occasions when things go especially badly they may be told to bone up fast and come back to the Star Chamber for further interrogation.
Even when this does not happen, the organisation is still not out of the woods. Having made their observations, the committee members have to report back to Parliament with their findings and make any recommendation for further action that they may feel is warranted. At this time of year, these reports are so numerous that members of the Parliamentary press gallery seldom have time to give them more than cursory glance, if that.
This is pity because financial reviews contain treasure trove of information about how taxpayers’ money is being spent, or misspent as the case may be. For instance, in just one week early last month, the curious reader could have gained fresh access to the joys and tribulations of TVNZ, the Securities Commission, Sport and Recreation, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Families Commission and Housing New Zealand Corporation, although it is better than even bet that few took the opportunity offered.
Here are just some of the interesting things that you could have learned had you scanned just three of the reports listed above.
In the TVNZ review you would have come across the story of how the company uses an Auckland-based psychologist to help deal with mistrust between members of staff in the Wellington newsroom (although not, it seems, in the Auckland boardroom).
From the SPARC review you would have learnt that no less than seven of SPARC’s board members (there are only nine) attended the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. The body explained that sport-related conferences and ministerial meetings cluster around major sporting events, and it is essential that officials from organisations like SPARC are appropriately represented. In reply the Committee dryly observed that; “At the time of the hearing we were informed that similar high-level meetings were to take place during the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games”.
Being commissioner on the Families Commission isn’t bad either. Its financial review reveals that, as at 30 June 2005, $394,265 had been paid in fees to commissioners. Commissioners are paid daily rates of approximately $560. Part-time commissioners work maximum of 100 days year, and full-time commissioners maximum of 200. When MPs asked the chief commissioner what role he had in determining the hours worked by the commissioners, they were told he had none.
Julie Collier is editor and publisher of Select Committee News.
