Wood MichaelOMBUDSMEN (PROTECTION OF NAME) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 11 December.MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Well the hour draws nigh but we still have some important work before us in this House and that is the conclusion of this reading of the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill. It is an important bill because of the role of ombudsmen within our democratic system as a protector of the public interests. One of the things that's important about living in a democracy isn't just that you get to vote every three years but that we have just and reasonable processes within our systems; that people are treated fairly; that if they are not they have some recourse; and that ultimately the State will ensure that people have their rights protected and affirmed particularly when those people might be in vulnerable situations or might be interfacing with powerful institutions be they private companies or be they public entities. One of the very important bedrocks of our system in New Zealand in terms of ensuring those rights for people is the system of the ombudsman. Ombudsmen in New Zealand were established I think it was in 1975 under the Ombudsmen Act and they are essentially in most situations for people a final port of call. If you are for example having problems in terms of your relationship with your bank or your insurance company as a citizen and you work through the bank's internal processes you're not satisfied with the outcome you perhaps feel that you have been poorly treated where do you go to from there? What we have in place in our system is an ombudsman system whereby people can access a free and impartial person—institution—who can look at the situation and who can judge what has happened and can make some determinations about a fair and equitable position going forward.What this piece of legislation does is ensure the integrity of the ombudsman system by as the title of the bill would suggest ensuring that we protect the name of Ombudsman". It's a Swedish word. It comes out of the Swedish system. Of course we often look to the Nordic countries for the public values that they inject into their systems. This has been an important part of it but if people are going to have confidence in the notion of going to an ombudsman they need to know that it's a term that actually has some meaning. It can't just be a term that for example a public or a private entity sets up to try and give a fig leaf of cover in terms of process. It actually has to be a term that has some meaning. So what this bill does is ensure that that term that's set up in the Ombudsman Act 1975 is restricted to either an Ombudsman—and that is someone who is directly appointed under the 1975 Act—or a person who is appointed to a position established by the Chief Ombudsman such as an assistant ombudsman or a deputy ombudsman or any public sector organisation approved by the Minister under the administration of that Act. So it's quite narrowly defined under this piece of legislation which person can be termed an ombudsman. There's also a very specific provision in this piece of legislation to ensure that I think probably the two ombudsman who are probably about the most frequently accessed by New Zealanders—being the Banking Ombudsman and the Insurance & Financial Services Ombudsman—are permitted to continue using that name under the Act. I've had a number of dealings particularly with the Banking Ombudsman and have always been really impressed by the service that they provide to New Zealanders and by the transparency of their processes. So it's quite appropriate that this bill does carve out and ensure that they are able to continue using those names. It also protects the rights of the Financial Services Complaints Limited in respect of a recent Court of Appeal judgment to use the name "Ombudsman" should it be given permission to by the Chief Ombudsman under the current law. So it is an important piece of legislation. It's been considered by the Governance and Administration Committee and they appear to have done a pretty thorough job of this piece of legislation. They've made a number of relatively minor changes to the legislation that came to their committee but their work seems to have proceeded very satisfactorily. In conclusion this is an important bill. As I said at the outset of my comments the ombudsman system is one of the ways in which we protect the rights of New Zealanders as they go about their lawful business. It's one of the ways in which we balance interests within our society so that the little guy—the small business or the ordinary person—isn't held hostage by their relative lack of resources versus a large public sector entity or a large private business. So it is important that we protect the name. This bill does what it says on the tin by doing that by some relatively simple mechanisms and I'm pleased to see that it appears to be enjoying widespread support if not rapturous enthusiasm tonight around the House and I very happily commend this bill to the House. Thank you Madam Speaker."