Motions — Ombudsmen, Office—50th Anniversary of Establishment

Following discussion in the Business Committee, I seek leave to move Government motion No. 1. I move that this House place on record—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I had better put that leave to the House. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

I move, That this House place on record that 1 October marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of Ombudsmen in New Zealand, the first in an English-speaking country and a model for the spread of the office throughout the world, and note the important contribution that the office makes to the preservation of administrative justice in this country.

The Government is pleased to recognise the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsmen. The concept originated in Sweden in the early 19th century. The Swedish Ombudsmen had jurisdiction over almost all national and municipal officials, who could be disciplined and even prosecuted for incorrect behaviour. Champions for establishing the Ombudsman in New Zealand included National Party politicians John, or Jack, Marshall and Ralph Hanan.

The Office of the Ombudsmen in New Zealand was established under the Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act 1962 as an independent office protected by the authority of Parliament. This set an international precedent as in other countries Ombudsmen were appointed by the Government. The first Ombudsman, Sir Guy Powles, a former lawyer, soldier, and diplomat, was sworn in on 1 October 1962. He held the office until 1977. His performance made the institution widely respected, and its authority and scope were extended. The Ombudsmen Act 1975 allowed the appointment of several Ombudsmen, and their jurisdiction was extended to statutory boards and local government. Successive legislation has solidified the Ombudsmen’s position. The 1982 Official Information Act, the 1987 Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, the Protected Disclosures Act 2000, and the Crown Entities Act 2004 have all added to the transparency of governing.

New Zealand has been blessed to have had a succession of successful and influential Ombudsmen: Sir Guy Powles, Sir George Laking, Eaton Hurley, Lester Castle, Sir John Robertson, Nadja Tollemache, who was New Zealand’s first Ombudswoman, Susan Richards, Sir Brian Elwood, the Rt Hon Sir Anand Satyanand, Mel Smith, John Belgrave, and the two current Ombudsmen, Dame Beverley Wakem and David McGee. So on this 50th anniversary we congratulate them on all they do for New Zealand, and we look forward to the next 50 years.

Since its creation half a century ago, the Office of the Ombudsmen has been occupied by a number of truly gifted New Zealanders. The Deputy Leader of the House named them, and many of those names resonate with us still: Powles, our last Governor of Samoa; Laking, our ambassador to Washington in the years of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations; Robertson, a former State Services Commissioner, Secretary of Defence, and Secretary for Justice; Satyanand, a District Court judge who would go on to be Governor-General; Smith, a former Secretary for Justice; Belgrave, a former Secretary for Justice and also Secretary of Commerce, State Services Commissioner, and Comptroller of Customs; McGee, a long-serving and distinguished Clerk of this House; and, last, but of course not least, Wakem, previously Chief Executive of Radio New Zealand and a member of the Higher Salaries Commission. These have all been Officers of Parliament of significant stature, who have served the public and our Parliament with distinction since 1962.

The Ombudsmen perform an extremely important role. As we look forward to the work of the office over the next 50 years we must all take seriously our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that it is properly resourced to do its job, and that we treat the office and its staff with the respect and the compliance that the law properly demands. The Labour Opposition is pleased to support the motion.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support the motion on the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsmen. When New Zealand’s first Ombudsman, Sir Guy Powles, was sworn in in front of the Speaker of Parliament in 1962, he said “The Ombudsman is Parliament’s person—put there for the protection of the individual,”. New Zealand was the fourth country, after Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, to establish the Office of the Ombudsmen, and was the first country outside of Scandinavia. It is an idea that has caught on, and now, according to the International Ombudsman Institute, there are more than 150 countries with Ombudsmen-like institutions around the world.

We would like to acknowledge the work of all the Ombudsmen, including the current two, Dame Beverley Wakem and Dr David McGee, and also all the staff who have worked for them over the years. They play an important role in our democracy.

However, we would also like to note the importance of adequate funding for them to be able to do that important role. In the 2011 financial review of the Office of the Ombudsmen, the Chief Ombudsman stated that the office was in crisis and was now handling a significant increase in workload. We share what the member Charles Chauvel has said about the responsibility of all in Parliament to adequately fund the office.

We have not agreed with every decision made by the Ombudsmen, and probably Governments have agreed even less, which I guess is testimony to the independence of the office. But I would like to share one positive example. In 2009 councils in Tasman and Canterbury were refusing to release important information regarding thousands of potentially contaminated toxic sites. As a result of the action by the Ombudsmen, that information is now public. We believe it was the right call, and it would not have happened without the intervention of the Ombudsmen. Fifty years on, we would like to acknowledge the establishment of this important office. Kia ora.

New Zealand First joins with other parties in acknowledging the celebration of this 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsmen. As has been said, to be correct, New Zealand was the first country outside of Scandinavia to establish an Office of the Ombudsmen. Since then, the Office of the Ombudsmen has come to play a significant role in our democracy.

How ironic it is that we are marking this event this week. Thomas Jefferson said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. This week we have had a perfect illustration through the revelations of unlawful surveillance activity of the Government Communications Security Bureau of the importance of ensuring open, transparent, and accountable Government. We have been reminded that the greatest threat to our democracy is secrecy and the abuse of power that occurs when the public are denied their right to know. Once again we have seen that those in power are given to ignoring due process and the law, and that an effective democracy requires a range of supporting structures and institutions.

The Office of the Ombudsmen has proven a powerful mechanism for keeping the public informed, but there is a deeply troubling tendency for Government to apply obfuscation and delay in responding to Official Information Act requests, and all of us around here have been privy to that. New Zealand First considers there is a strong case that additional funding should be allocated to the Office of the Ombudsmen to ensure the public can gain access to official information without the inordinate delay that is often now the case. And probably the same should be said about the Neazor report and that office, as well.

It is appropriate that we mark the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsmen, because it plays a vital role in supporting democratic processes in New Zealand.

On behalf of United Future, I want to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by others to first of all recognise and secondly congratulate the Office of the Ombudsmen on the attainment of its 50th anniversary.

When the office was established in 1962, times were much simpler, and the notion that there should be some sort of independent watchdog able to call Government agencies to account for actions where the individual citizen felt aggrieved was a pretty attractive one. For the first 20 years of the office’s existence, that was largely its primary function. But the role of the Office of the Ombudsmen has changed significantly since the advent of the Official Information Act, and the Ombudsman has become much more of an arbiter of decisions as to whether or not certain information should be released. I often fear that that may be to the cost of the individual citizen. The aggrieved small person who wanted to take an action before the Ombudsman may now find that the pressure from other claims, usually associated with Official Information Act requests in and around Government, is reducing that authority. I am not saying that the two are inconsistent. I guess I am supporting the role of the office and the need for it to be resourced to do the job.

Finally, can I conclude by noting the high calibre of people who have served in the role of Chief Ombudsman over the years. I have had the privilege of working at various times with every one of them, bar Sir Guy Powles, and I think that they have all brought a uniformly high standard of integrity, intelligence, and perspicacity to the role. At the end of the day, what has made this office the success it has been, aped by so many other countries around the world but also now a revered New Zealand institution, has been the calibre of people who have served in that role. I think the challenge for this Parliament in the future when it appoints the next round of Ombudspeople is to make sure that that consistently high standard is maintained and developed, and that the office in its next 50 years continues to receive the respect that it deserves from the citizens of New Zealand.

Motion agreed to.