Dear Office of the Controller and Auditor-General,

I am writing to express my concerns and request information under the Official Information Act regarding the Office of the Auditor-General's investigative authority concerning the procurement process for ministers appointing report writers. Specifically, I am deeply concerned about Minister Bishop's appointment of former National Party leader Bill English to write a partisan report on KO using public funds without undergoing any procurement checks. This undermines public trust and confidence in public finance.

Furthermore, I am concerned about how the rate of pay for Bill English was determined and whether this process was transparent. Additionally, I am concerned about the text messages that directly inquire with Minister Bishop about his expectations for the review, along with the funding source for his and his daughter's company's review. Does the Office have powers to investigate such matters?

Moreover, I would appreciate clarification on whether the Office has the independent authority to thoroughly investigate purely political appointments and the public allocation of funding for such a purpose. I also seek assurance on whether the Auditor-General operates independently or faces influence or constraints imposed by the executive branch of government.

Your prompt attention to these concerns and inquiries is greatly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Green

Dear Jessica Short,

Thank you for your prompt response to my inquiry regarding the appointment of Mr. Bill English for the report on Kāinga Ora, and the use of public funds in this matter.

I appreciate the information provided regarding the statutory framework under which such appointments are made, including the Cabinet's approval process and the discretionary powers of ministers. However, I remain deeply concerned about the implications of such appointments on transparency and public trust.

Specifically, my concerns revolve around:

Lack of Procurement Safeguards
It appears that ministerial appointments for reports using public funds are not subject to Government Procurement Rules. This raises the risk of partisan appointments without transparent processes, potentially favoring political allies over merit-based consulting firms.

In the case of Mr. Bill English, his involvement raises serious concerns due to apparent conflicts of interest linked to his business ventures. The Kāinga Ora Report recommends a departure from universalism towards a social impact approach, a stance that aligns with Mr. English's business interests, particularly through ImpactLab.The report also includes expectations of formal reporting of outcomes by a third party and promotes a social investment approach. It has come to light that ImpactLab charges substantial fees to charities for assessments related to such recommendations. For instance, charities are reportedly required to pay ImpactLab $25,000 to receive recommendations on their social outcomes, influencing government funding decisions.

This scenario casts doubt on the independence and fairness of the report's conclusions. It raises questions about whether public funds are being used to advance agendas that benefit politically connected individuals or entities. The absence of competitive bidding from truly independent consulting firms, such as reputable consulting firms, further underscores the risk of biased outcomes in government reports. This situation suggests that public funds may not be allocated based on merit.

These issues highlight a troubling loophole where public funds could potentially be utilised to support private interests rather than serving the public good. Ensuring transparency and preventing such conflicts of interest in procurement processes is crucial to upholding public trust and accountability.

Independence and Oversight
While I acknowledge the independence of the Office of the Auditor-General, the ability to inquire into the use of public money under the Public Audit Act 2001, and the Officer of Parliament status, the current framework appears to provide insufficient safeguards against misuse of public funds for politically motivated purposes.

Given these concerns, I would appreciate further clarification on the following points:

Prevention of Favoritism
What mechanisms, if any, are in place or could be implemented to ensure that future procurement processes for report writing appointments are conducted in a manner that upholds transparency and prevents favoritism based on political affiliation?

Legal and Legislative Remedies
Would addressing these issues require judicial review, or would legislative changes be necessary to strengthen procurement guidelines and ensure that public funds are allocated solely based on merit rather than political connections?

I look forward to your insights and suggestions on how these issues could be addressed to enhance accountability and public confidence in the use of public resources.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Green