Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill

This is a very simple bill achieving to do a very simple thing: to prevent very simple people from abusing a very important office—that is the Office of the Ombudsman. We have a provision in the current legislation that allows the Chief Ombudsman to grant others the use of the term “ombudsman”. Previous Ombudsmen have done that on at least two occasions to private organisations. So, for example, we have what used to be known as the Banking Ombudsman—I think it is now the Banking and Insurance Ombudsman—and there is at least one other, whose name and purpose eludes me for the moment. But there are others who have been queuing up to use the name.

The current Chief Ombudsman is concerned that the whole heritage of the role of the Office of the Ombudsman, which carries the important role of ensuring that the State and its agencies not only comply with the law but conduct themselves ethically and properly and in a way that best serves the interests of the citizens who those organisations are serving. It would be very easy for the gravitas of that office to be diluted were it not to be properly protected.

The motivation for this bill comes from a decision of the Court of Appeal in the last couple of years. The reasoning of the Court of Appeal appears to be that because previous Chief Ombudsmen have granted the use of the name of “ombudsman” to private organisations, then other organisations seeking to use the name should not be denied the market advantage that goes with it. It almost, sort of, requires the Chief Ombudsman to compulsorily or mandatorily give the name, grant the use of the name, that the legislation seeks to actually allow to be protected.

So this takes the power of the decision away from the Chief Ombudsman and puts it in the hands of the Minister, but is very, very clear that it is not expected that this name would be used for anything other than organisations or relevant agencies in the State sector. Therefore, we won’t have this proliferation of various ombudsmen or offices of ombudsmen. The real Office of the Ombudsman will continue to have the importance and gravitas that it now has. On that basis, I think it will make a very important contribution to the pantheon of law change that this Parliament will have achieved.

If there was ever a bill that was a solution looking for a problem, it’s got to be this bill. What a complete and utter waste of Parliament’s time. That’s why the Minister stood—he could only speak for 2½ minutes. What does the bill do?

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Sit down then.

Don’t worry, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. Of course he wants me to sit down—of course he does. Every time I get up, he’s in trouble; he’s running for the hills. He’s blowing raspberries now—classic response from the Minister.

This is a complete, total, utter waste of time. This is a waste of this Parliament’s time. This bill affects absolutely no one. All the good legislation’s been through Parliament. All our legislation’s come through. This Government that was meant to be transformational, with a Minister that was going to be transformational to our justice sector, brings an ombudsman’s bill.

Who does this actually affect? Do you want to know why it’s here? The reason why it’s here is because there is no proliferation of the use of the name, but there was an organisation that it passed the hurdles, passed the tests, should have been able to use the name quite legally. The Ombudsman and the Minister for some reason thought it wasn’t appropriate. It went to court. They won it in court. So what do they do? They bring the legislation into the House to change it.

Bring some serious legislation to the House, Minister, that we can get up and speak to. The reason why this Government’s in trouble is if you look at the Order Paper there’s nothing on the Order Paper. There’s one more bill. We won’t be taking calls on this—waste of time. Watch the Government now start to filibuster it. Let’s see. Let’s see the Minister now continue to take calls on this fantastic ombudsman’s bill. It’s a complete and utter waste of time. It’s a sham from a sham Government. Thank you, Madam Chair.