Appointments — Chief Ombudsman and Ombudsmen

I move, That this House, taking note of the forthcoming retirement of Sir Brian George Conway Elwood, CBE, as Chief Ombudsman, place on record its appreciation of Sir Brian’s service as an Officer of Parliament since 1992; further note his earlier distinguished public and local government service, including periods as Mayor of Palmerston North, President of the Municipal Association of New Zealand, and Chairman of the Local Government Commission; and wish Sir Brian and Lady Elwood a happy retirement. I think that the motion is long enough and actually covers the speech that I was going to make.

Secondly, I move, That, pursuant to section 3 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975, this House recommends Her Excellency the Governor-General to appoint Maurice John Belgrave as an Ombudsman and to appoint him as Chief Ombudsman, for a term commencing on 1 July 2003.

I also move, That, pursuant to section 8 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975, this House recommends Her Excellency the Governor-General to reappoint Melwyn Purefoy Smith of Wellington as an additional Ombudsman for a period of two years, commencing on 5 June 2003.

Obviously, having touched upon Sir Brian’s long career, I say that he served particularly as the head of the Local Government Commission during its most active period between 1985 and 1992, and while there was much bitter, and indeed at times almost vicious, political opposition to the reforms that Sir Brian headed, I notice that not a single one of those reforms was subsequently undone, and that some of those who were most active in opposing them now call very actively for them to be taken a great deal further in terms of local government reform and amalgamation of local authorities.

In terms of John Belgrave, I say that he has a very long, distinguished career in the public sector, with some brief periods in the private sector. John initially served with the Department of Trade and Industry, and served in a number of roles overseas in London, Melbourne, and Tokyo. He then held senior executive positions in the public service: Assistant Secretary to the Department of Trade and Industry, Assistant Director-General in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and chief executive positions as Comptroller of Customs, Secretary to the Minister of Commerce, Secretary to the Department of Commerce, and then Secretary of the Ministry of Justice from 1994 to 1997. He was Executive Director of the New Zealand Bankers Association for a couple of years, Executive Director of the Electricity Supply Association for 2 years, chair of the Standards Council, chair of the Institute of Policy Studies at Victoria University, and, since 1999, chair of the Commerce Commission. So he brings an enormous range of experience to the office of Chief Ombudsman—an office that inevitably brings him, on occasions, into conflict with all kinds of different people, both Government and others. The Ombudsman’s position is one of those positions where one is never going to please everybody all the time, but it is a matter of carrying it out with integrity and honour. I think it can clearly be said that Mr Belgrave has the qualifications for that task, as Sir Brian Elwood has had the qualifications for the task since 1992.

Mel Smith was appointed an additional Ombudsman at the end of 2001, for 18 months, and this motion reappoints Mr Smith for a term of 2 years. He was previously a Deputy Secretary for Internal Affairs, and then, rather extraordinarily I think, was the acting chief executive of four agencies—the Department of Justice, the Government Superannuation Fund, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Social Policy. He has performed, I think, with distinction as an additional Ombudsman since his appointment.

The National Party has pleasure in supporting motion No. 2 on Sir Brian Elwood’s retirement. As the House is aware, there was a function before the Easter adjournment but time did not allow for the official recognition.

Sir Brian, as the Leader of the House has said, was appointed Ombudsman in 1992, and was appointed Chief Ombudsman on 14 December 1994. Today this House records with gratitude Sir Brian’s unselfish devotion and distinguished public and local government service. The Office of the Ombudsmen has made considerable progress over the years, and has earned the respect of the public and of this House. Sir Brian has enjoyed the confidence of all who have dealt with him, and on behalf of the National Party I wish him and Lady Elwood the very best for a long and happy retirement.

In speaking to motion No. 2 concerning the appointment of Mr John Belgrave, I say that this parliamentary appointment has the support of the whole House. John Belgrave, much like the person he succeeds, has had a distinguished career. Many will know him and know of his qualifications—indeed, they will know of his experience. The Leader of the House highlighted some of those positions, but I want to add to that. Mr Belgrave has been involved deeply and directly in New Zealand economic and trade policy development and implementation, both in New Zealand and overseas. In recent years he has been involved directly in the development and implementation of competition policy right across the economy. Mr Belgrave has had a comprehensive exposure to New Zealand commerce and industry, particularly as Secretary of Commerce, and through his work with the banking and electricity industries. He also has a good knowledge of consumer interests, having had overall responsibility for the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, which was part of the Ministry of Commerce. As a consequence, he has a very good working knowledge, in addition to the policy perspective, of New Zealand’s economic regulatory statutes. Mr Belgrave is well suited to the role of Chief Ombudsman, and National wishes him every success in this role.

In speaking to motion No. 3, I say that Mr Mel Smith was appointed an Ombudsman in December 2001 and National supports his reappointment to that position for a period of 2 years, commencing 5 June 2003. With Mr John Belgrave, Judge Anand Satyanand, and Mr Mel Smith as the three Ombudsmen, we can be assured of the highest standard of service and commitment. National has pleasure in supporting all three motions.

On behalf of New Zealand First I join with the other speakers in supporting the three motions. All three persons have been mentioned by the previous speakers. I can say that the public has been extremely well served by Sir Brian George Conway Elwood, who made his name in local government and added to it with great excellence in his position as Chief Ombudsman. I am sure that the two new appointees, in their continuation of terms and such like, will perform excellently for New Zealand and the public as officers of Parliament. New Zealand First supports all the motions.

For ACT, I also state our intention to support these three motions. In relation to Sir Brian Elwood, a retirement of this kind gives pause for reflection on a disability we now suffer under in relation to the replacements. It is highly suitable that we can commend Sir Brian. On National Radio over the weekend, I heard Sir Brian interviewed about how he saw public affairs, and the term “sir” could be used.

I went to the Office of the Ombudsmen immediately after Sir Guy Powles. Sir Guy had established that office with a reputation that could easily have gone the other way. We had imported a mechanism, an office—even a description—from Scandinavia, and the first appointment was absolutely critical to establishing its clout. Because it had a recommending and reporting role, not a compulsion role, that clout came not from the legal provisions, but from the personal qualities of the people who have held that office. Sir Guy was followed by Sir George Laking who, I am pleased to say, is still alive at 90, and still following public affairs actively. I have had a message from him today, and I was very proud to have served under Sir George. Then there was Mr Lester Castle, and others, all of whom have upheld the honour of that office. It makes me very sorry to think that if Mr Belgrave and Mel Smith managed to maintain that high standard, they will not be recognised or addressed by the public in terms of a status and office description. We should be able to offer to our honoured high officials more than the simple term “commissioner”. I think the commission itself is enhanced by the expectation that a worthy performer gets an honorific such as “sir”.

I want to turn now to the particular things that will mark the term in office of the two individuals that the motions relate to. After Sir Brian’s retirement, they will have to continue with the very difficult task of presiding over a regime in relation to the Official Information Act that is now out of fashion. In the late 1970s—as sunlight is a disinfectant—freedom of information, New Zealand’s version of the Official Information Act, and the extension of the Ombudsman’s role in relation to it, were seen as natural developments of Government. Openness is one of the prices we ought to pay for having a healthy modern civilisation, but in the last 10 years we have suddenly turned that principle on its head. Privacy has become a value that now supplants openness, and the matter in the report of the Officers of Parliament Committee typifies that. I hope that Mel Smith and Mr Belgrave will wholeheartedly defend the action being brought against them by the Ministry of Social Policy and Work and Income New Zealand. That is a classic example of the tension I have mentioned, and it is one that is particularly important when there are two senior internal appointments.

Effectively, Mr Belgrave and Mr Smith are internal appointments. They have both worked for many years in the public service—unlike Sir Brian, who came from outside and had a long time as a lawyer in general practice. He then had a long period in local government, and so could be expected to approach Government and the exercise of executive power from the perspective of someone who at times must have been frustrated by it, and who knew what it was like to feel a helpless citizen against not only city hall but the central State. I think there is a bit of concern that we are dealing with two nominees, both of whom have been loyal, diligent, effective public servants, but have not had notable experience of the other side. It is a note of warning, but it is not saying that they will not perform.

Crown Law is suing the Office of the Ombudsmen to try to prevent the implementation of a decision that the Department of Social Welfare should allow the Department for Courts the addresses of dud tenants so that court judgments against them can be enforced. That is a touchstone issue, and I earnestly hope that both the new ombudsmen will see it as a cause that they should take up with all energy. That is particularly important, because Mr Smith has spent time recently in the justice portfolio, and has had a very active involvement in looking at what the courts have been doing. I hope his natural inclination is to make sure that the courts are just as effective as they possibly can be.

A further concern is that sometimes when people are appointed at the end of very long and successful careers and do not have reasonable assurance of their terms, there is a possibility of too much power being preserved, or too little independence. Maybe someone from the Officers of Parliament Committee can clarify that issue, as I am not sure whether there is any formal or informal understanding about the length of term of these appointments. Certainly, we got very good value from some of those people for a long time after their appointments. I hope it is not anticipated that there will be a regular and short-term turnover of those very important officers, when they prove to be as good as some of the ones we have had—in particular, Sir Brian Elwood.

On behalf of United Future, I would like to mark the retirement of Sir Brian Elwood as our Chief Ombudsman by honouring the distinguished service he has rendered to that office and to the people of New Zealand since 1992. The role of Ombudsman is very much what its incumbent makes it. Sir Brian has enhanced the reputation and credibility of that office in the eyes of the citizens of this nation, and that is the ultimate accolade to a person who has dedicated his life to public service.

I also take the opportunity to congratulate John Belgrave on his appointment as Chief Ombudsman and to wish him well. He will have large shoes to fill, and unless I am very much mistaken, he will prove himself equal to the task and live up to the high standards established by his predecessor.

Motion relating to Sir Brian Elwood agreed to.

Motion relating to Mr John Belgrave agreed to.

Motion relating to Mr Mel Smith agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.