Parliament's Watchdogs — New Zealand 's Officers of Parliament

Spring 2010 Parliament’s Watchdogs — NZ’s Officers of Parliament 143about how the way the FEC’s criteria should mesh with the imperatives andapplication of new public management.It is understood that New Zealand’s officers of Parliament do not consider thestatutory consultation requirements to be too onerous or raise any real concernsabout their independence from the political process. However, it remains critical tothe continued workability of this process that the officer should have the final sayover the content of his or her work programme. Neither are officers of Parliamentconcerned about political interference in the operational aspect of their work. Itremains important to the officers of Parliament, however, that politicians and theGovernment recognise their officer of Parliament status and function, and their rightto express a view.Further, it is understood that officers consider it important for their independencethat Parliament plays its part in the relationship by supporting the officers and theirrole, taking their reports seriously, and avoiding bringing them into politicaldebates.AccountabilityBuchanan says it is accepted by all of New Zealand’s officers of Parliament, pastand present, that provided officers’ independent judgement is not challenged,independence does not exempt them from accountability to the House for thestewardship of public funds and for the office’s performance. According toBuchanan, an officer’s independent judgement covers the forming of opinions, theissuing and content of reports, the selection of work, and the exercise of anystatutory discretions. Buchanan suggests that the FEC’s criteria for defining anofficer of Parliament would be improved by the inclusion of these distinctions.It is understood that New Zealand’s officers of Parliament consider the currentaccountability regime to be appropriate. There are, however, different perspectiveson the way the Officers of Parliament Committee should provide parliamentaryscrutiny in practice. The current practice is for the committee to review all theofficers’ statements of intent as a prelude to funding decisions, while the end-ofyearfinancial review is undertaken by the relevant subject select committee. Thisapproach is considered appropriate by both the House and the officers of Parliamentbecause it is presumed that the focus at year end on performance rather than theexercise of independent judgement lessens the need for non-partisan scrutiny by adedicated body such as the Officers of Parliament Committee.The opposing view is that the accountability of officers of Parliament should beassured through the same committee that approves the funding of their workprogrammes. This would minimise the risk that a more politically partisan subjectselect committee might be overly rigorous in its examination of the performance ofan officer of Parliament in such a way as to undermine the independence of theoffice.