Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) : I move, That, pursuant to sections 3 and 5(2) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975, this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General reappoint Ms Beverley Anne Wakem, CBE, of Wellington, as an Ombudsman and as Chief Ombudsman with effect from 1 March 2010. Ms Wakem is a very distinguished servant of the New Zealand public. She has been an Ombudsman since 2005, having previously been a chief executive of Radio New Zealand from the early 1980s until 1991 and then embarking on an equally distinguished career in the private sector. She has been Chief Ombudsman since 2005, when she was appointed to that position by this House.

The Office of the Ombudsmen is a very important organ of State and also an important advocate for the protections that New Zealanders expect inside our democracy. It is an organisation that is able to conduct, free of charge, examinations into all manner of requests from the public that relate to the activities of governance in this country. It is also the organisation that has the greatest influence on the application of the Official Information Act. It is therefore an organisation that does have to have people of the highest calibre and highest integrity working within its office.

Ms Wakem has now fulfilled that role for a period with some distinction, and I understand that today there will be a unanimous decision by the House to reappoint her. That, I think, indicates the level of confidence that we have not only in Ms Wakem herself but also in the Office of the Ombudsmen.

The Government is very pleased to move this motion. We look forward to its smooth passage this afternoon, and we take this opportunity to offer Ms Wakem and her fellow Ombudsmen our best wishes as they go about their important work.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) : The Labour Opposition is in support of the motion moved by the Leader of the House to reappoint Beverley Anne Wakem CBE of Wellington for a further term as Ombudsman and also to continue in her role as Chief Ombudsman. The Leader of the House has outlined the important traditions of this job and we greatly respect and value the independence of the Office of the Ombudsmen. It is a remarkably important job in our country and in our system of constitutional arrangements, which are, of course, not written, so conventions of jobs and positions such as these are very, very important. New Zealand took on the role of having an Ombudsman in the early 1960s, from Scandinavia, and since that time the people who have filled those positions have acted with great honour and integrity, and have reinforced the decision of the New Zealand Government to set up such an office. As noted by Palmer and Palmer, in their book Bridled Power, Ombudsmen are Parliament’s people; they are separate from the executive branch of Government, and that is absolutely crucial. They are appointed by the Officers of Parliament Committee. Their budget is set independently of the executive Government. It is determined by the Officers of Parliament Committee, which is chaired by the Speaker, and for which unanimity or near-unanimity is required in order for decisions to be taken around both the appointment and funding of that office.

In our system of Government, even under proportional representation, it is very important for the Opposition to be able to rely on both the Official Information Act and questions for written answer, in order to elucidate information from the executive Government to fulfil the Opposition’s constitutional duty to hold the Government of the day to account and to have the ability to propose new ideas for the country to consider. Where there are disputes between the executive Government and the Opposition, the fall-back mechanism that the Opposition has is obviously the Speaker, in the first instance, in respect of questions for written answer, and, second, the Office of the Ombudsmen for Official Information Act requests where there is disagreement between a particular Minister’s office or department and a member of Parliament who is seeking that information.

So the Opposition not only values but relies on the unrelenting professionalism with which the Office of the Ombudsmen deals with our requests and complaints from time to time, as they occur. We know that it is a very heavy workload. There are many calls on the time of the Ombudsmen, and, from time to time over the years, the Office of the Ombudsmen, in reporting to the Officers of Parliament Committee, has made the point that, for example, the area of advocacy or recourse that prisoners have is often through the Office of the Ombudsmen, and that is a very heavy workload for the Ombudsmen to deal with.

There are members of the public who take up issues with the Ombudsman if their Official Information Act request is considered not to have been taken in the manner in which the applicant would have liked. As I mentioned before, Opposition MPs through the course of time have regularly used that as a reference point for areas where there has been disagreement. It might be possible or tempting for the Office of the Ombudsmen to occasionally look upon requests from the Opposition as a lower priority than those of other members of society.

Hon Parekura Horomia: No, no, no, no.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: My colleagues are saying “No, no, no”, and I am sure they are right. We believe that one of the fundamental aspects of the regime is that any New Zealander can take a complaint to the Ombudsman and that things that come in from Opposition members of Parliament are as important as those that come in from any member of the public. There is no hierarchy of requests. This is an office that acts for everybody. I think the fact that so many other agencies, even some in the private sector, have looked to use the term “ombudsman” for resolution of their own complaints process shows just the integrity with which this office has earned its place in our constitutional affairs since 1962.

Beverley Wakem is a thoroughly decent and hard-working person of great integrity. We welcome her reappointment to the role. We look forward to working with her, following in the footsteps as she does of many distinguished New Zealanders—principally, of course, the late John Belgrave, who served with great honour and distinction, and who, sadly, passed away in 2008. It is a moment to remember those who have held the job, but also for the House to come together and wish Beverley Wakem and her team well—particularly her, seeing this motion refers directly to her appointment—for the important role they fulfil. I am sure she will continue to be Parliament’s person, and her office will continue to be Parliament’s people, as we have come to expect, because that is fundamental to the business of our Government in New Zealand.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : The Green Party supports the reappointment of Beverley Anne Wakem as the Chief Ombudsman. Having a strong independent watchdog is vital in ensuring that our democracy functions appropriately. It is important that there are independent checks on the power of the executive, especially under a Westminster system that relies heavily on convention, as ours does. We simply wish her well in seeking out the truth in her work and holding those in power to account for their actions.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : Almost 2 years ago, on 17 April 2008, Te Ururoa Flavell spoke in the House of the support the Māori Party had for the appointment of Beverley Wakem as Chief Ombudsman. In that speech, Mr Flavell said: “We wish her great courage in continuing to tackle the truth, to be curious, to be sceptical, and to not be sidetracked by the political spin.” I am delighted to observe that Ms Wakem has certainly lived up to the challenge set out by the Māori Party that day.

As a former chief executive of Radio New Zealand, and having come from an impressive career in broadcasting and public relations, Beverley Wakem was used to shaping the news rather than being the focus of the news herself. But in December 2008 her decision to tackle the truth about the role of public servants in relation to Official Information Act requests catapulted her head first into the news. Ms Wakem suggested that some public servants were playing games with Official Information Act requests.

Out of her professional curiosity, tempered with the requisite scepticism, she confronted the situation by announcing that the Office of the Ombudsmen was concerned that some parts of the Public Service had been deliberately delaying responses to Official Information Act requests. In the office’s annual report to Parliament, Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem subsequently concluded that the practice was unacceptable and subverted the purpose of the legislation. She identified what she described as a regrettable tendency to game the system and delay responses until the complainant’s interest in the matter had passed. It is statements like that that demonstrate the determination of Ms Wakem to bring sharp intellectual rigour and moral fortitude to the role of Chief Ombudsman.

The name of the Office of the Ombudsmen, Te Tari-o-Ngā Kaitiaki Mana Tangata, tells us that it is an office that gives priority to the protection and promotion of the rights of people. It is a name that expresses the importance of the guardian caring for the overall good of the people. Another attribute that we see in the work of Ms Wakem is that not only is she prepared to make public statements but she goes one step further and tries to introduce strategies and support to help address any issues she identifies.

As a classic example of this, it is perhaps useful to go back to the statement about Official Information Act requests. Although noting the disappointment that the office had with the way in which Official Information Act requests were being issued, the office immediately conducted a series of briefings with public sector chief executives and representatives of political parties and published guidance material to help improve understanding and practice in this area.

Whether it was a direct result of those workshops is unknown, but it is of interest to note that the number of complaints received under the Official Information Act increased by 10 percent over the past year to 897. How agencies deal with requests and communicate with those requesting the information is a critical part of the role. It is perhaps worrying that after 25 years of the Official Information Act being enacted, some Government agencies are still not responding appropriately, but that is a debate for another day. For the purposes of this debate we merely seek to congratulate Bev Wakem on the influence she has already brought to bear as Chief Ombudsman.

The Office of the Ombudsmen plays a critical role in the lives of many New Zealanders. The Māori Party has the most profound respect for the work of the people who fulfil this role. The challenges they face are significant: investigating complaints about the decisions of central and local government agencies and Ministers of the Crown, and taking responsibility to tackle the truth.

The Office of the Ombudsmen encourages citizen participation in the democratic process. It maintains the decorum of respect that we would expect to see between individuals and agencies. For all these reasons, we are happy to add our support to the motion to endorse Bev Wakem in this important role.

• Motion agreed to.