Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a great pleasure to see such fantastic progress moving through the House this evening with some passionate contributions being made from around the House this evening on some much needed legislative changes that we’ve all been so desperately waiting for.

We’re only a few sleeps away from Christmas now. We can count down those days. But the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill is an important piece of legislation for some—respecting the word and the name and the brand “ombudsman”, and yet enabling the role to be regarded by the public and giving it a certain je ne sais quoi, a certain respect and understanding that the role that it plays is very important.

The ombudsman does play a very important role. It’s the place that we go to when we feel like there is no other place that we can go to—an overarching body that can give an impartial, completely independent view on a situation. It can judge Governments, it can judge individuals, and it can give opinions and have power to invoke positive changes for public interest’s sake and for individuals and for certain issues.

The Ombudsmen protection bill for that brand is very important. We have seen the use of the term “ombudsman” in other countries to be overused and prolifically under-utilised, therefore reducing its power and equity within a community. We in New Zealand believe that that should be protected in New Zealand, which is why we are ring-fencing that term and giving it a very serious high profile position that it does deserve.

We do believe that this bill is important. Some people think that it doesn’t require the amount of time and effort and energy. I’m not going to give it a huge amount of time, but we do commend this bill to the House, because it deserves to go through and the people of New Zealand need to understand that the very important and well-respected brand of ombudsman has a very strong role to play, which is why we will commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

National does not support the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill. We do, indeed, believe that this bill is not necessary and is, effectively, wasting the House’s and select committee’s time. The member who has just resumed his seat, Clayton Mitchell, cited exactly the reason why National does not support this bill. The member cited unspecified overseas countries where the ombudsman’s name is overused. Well, that’s simply not the case in New Zealand. As it currently stands, the term “ombudsman” is rarely adopted and rarely used, so indeed there is no problem to be solved. So this bill simply is a space-filler in the Order Paper, in order for this Government to look as if it’s doing something.

The National Party took a very strong part in the select committee process, and it is our view that while there is a savings provision contained in this bill under new clauses 2 and 2A, in Schedule 1AA, the savings provision would allow the Banking Ombudsman Scheme and the Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme Incorporated to continue to use the name, because they have permission, if you like, to do so, but they would not be able, in the future, to change their corporate structure and still continue to use that name. So they would therefore be caught in a certain period in time. They are known as the ombudsman schemes and they should continue to be used as the ombudsman scheme.

This is a bill which is looking to solve a problem which simply does not exist in New Zealand, and National does not support it to the House.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak to this Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill in what appears to be one of the calmer moments that we’ve witnessed in this Chamber in the past few hours.

This is a common-sense piece of legislation; it’s interesting to hear from the National Party that it’s unnecessary and that it’s a waste of space. I hope that they contribute some great ideas at the committee of the whole House stage up next. But none the less, as this is common sense, it doesn’t require that much more contribution. The Green Party supports this bill.

National opposes the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill; however, we will work together with Government MPs to improve the bill. National oppose the bill because we believe it is a waste of Parliament’s time. The bill simply transfers the power regarding protection of the name of “ombudsman” from the ombudsman to the Minister, and attempts to address a problem that does not really exist.

If we read the Ministry of Justice’s regulatory impact statement—or RIS—we can see that the officials are not enthusiastic about the bill at all; they simply can’t find any good, convincing reasons to justify such a Government bill. Officials say, on page 3 in the RIS, that the evidence certainty for the bill is low. They are not even confident that they are well positioned to produce an analysis and give advice to the Cabinet because of “A lack of empirical evidence about the nature and extent of the problem” and “Key gaps and assumptions in the data or analysis” and “Insufficient consultation and information to inform analysis or test assumptions.” So I oppose the bill.

Thank you very much. I’m delighted, if not somewhat surprised, to be speaking on the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill. You know, sometimes things come in front of this House that the other side might wish to ridicule; they might wish to make cheap political points, but I am shocked that they would choose to take that tack on something as important as protecting the name of the “ombudsman”.

The thing is that the ombudsman role is vital in our democracy; it is a layer of protection to ensure that people who live in this country can have a fall-back, I suppose—a check on a check; a balance on a balance. That is what an ombudsman is. Yet that other side of the House is willing to have it flailed about willy-nilly by any character, any rooster that pops into town.

What if I wanted to come into town and open up an “Ombudsman’s Advice Service”? I might change my name to “Ombudsman”, and it would be entirely appropriate. Kieran “McOmbudsman”, I might change my name to, and that might allow me to open up a financial advice service, and in doing so, I would give my service an artificial veneer of credibility just because of the use of the term, and we say that is wrong—that is utterly wrong.

For nine years, the previous Government flailed about with this opportunity and loophole available to people, and I say, thank God no one used it. But the Hon Andrew Little came along and said, “Here is a loophole which we will not stand for and we will fix.” So what this bill does is it protects the integrity of the role of the parliamentary Ombudsman.

I note that the Minister, in his second reading speech, acknowledged the work of the Governance and Administration Committee—and good on them. So here we are at the second reading, with an opportunity to reflect on the changes that the select committee made. I note that there were 11 submitters, of which six presented orally. I think that’s a tremendous strike rate—that is a marvellous strike rate. It demonstrates the interest in something of this nature. I refer to something that came in front of this House on a members’ day not that long ago. For here we have the National Party, speaker after speaker after speaker, saying that this is not important and it’s not needed, and that no one cares. Yet this had a total of 11 submitters, a sum total of 10 submitters more than Todd Muller’s member’s bill, which the National Party stood there and said. “This is vital that we pass for the benefit of cooperatives around the country.” What is good for the goose is good for the gander—that’s what I say.

Here we are with an opportunity to make sure that the use of the term “ombudsman” is prohibited from use aside from those that it was intended. Now, I’m sure it’s on the tip of our tongues that we acknowledge that the name “ombudsman” is currently protected under the Ombudsman Act 1975. I have to say that it’s been a privilege. I commend this bill to the House.

We are absolutely opposed to this bill because it’s a complete and utter waste of time. In the 10 or 15 seconds that I have left, I wish this House to be aware that, actually, there are more important things for this House to do. The Chief Ombudsman was in the Governance and Administration Committee today, and I have great respect for him—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m very sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the chair. The House stands adjourned till 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.