Little AndrewOMBUDSMEN (PROTECTION OF NAME) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. It's a great pleasure to move that the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill does something that's very simple: it affords the proper protection that the Office of the Ombudsmen should properly have in this country. The way it works at the moment is that it is possible for a Chief Ombudsman to grant the use of the name Ombudsman" to other organisations who wish to use it. The current wording in the Act actually started a proposition that the name should not be used by other organisations but there is this discretion and that discretion has been exercised so that on at least a couple of occasions private organisations doing investigations similar to what the Government Ombudsman does can use that name. The difficulty is that there's been a recent application for use of the name that was declined. That denial or rejection or decline of that application to use the name was then litigated and it led to a very interesting decision by the Court of Appeal that said that because the decision has been made on earlier occasions for other private organisations to use the name it would be wrong—effectively a distortion of the market—if future applications were declined for private organisations to use the name. Therefore the Chief Ombudsman on that occasion and on future occasions really had to consider the fact that other organisations—private organisations with the name—would have some market advantage. Now that is not in the spirit of the law as it is right now and so it's been important for us to clarify that and correct it. The reality is that the Office of the Ombudsmen has a very sacred origin and that is that it is a fearless advocate for the citizen when it comes to their relationship with Government departments and agencies. It started in Sweden and was picked up in other Western democracies and by us back in the 1960s and 1970s. We've had it all that time and it has become a very effective office. We need stern and fearless people in the office—the current Chief Ombudsman is such a person—and we need that to continue. What we don't want to do is dilute the gravitas associated with this office and this bill does that. I know members opposite have been concerned and they think this is trivial. They think that it's not very important. But in the life of a Parliament—in the three years of the life of a Parliament—a Parliament has to do a number of things. They have to do big transformative things and sometimes they have to do just the little bitty things but that are significant and material and can make a difference. This is one of the little bitty things that it gets to do and it ought not to detain this House unduly as it's been very clearly examined. The committee of the whole House stage lasted for four or five minutes last night actually examining the bill because actually it is very simple: it is about protecting the gravitas of the Office of the Ombudsmen. It does that and it does what I think the original Act intended to do.It does one other thing too. It preserves the existing use of the name by private organisations who have it so they don't lose anything and for the one organisation who has applied to use it and is awaiting determination it preserves them the right to have that application determined but of course it doesn't predetermine what the outcome of that application will be. But now it is very clear that the name "Ombudsman" cannot be used willy-nilly by private organisations or any other organisation. It is very clear about the basis in which it can be used.This is a very good bill. It restores the mana of the Office of the Ombudsmen. I commend it to the House."