Franks Stephen: Retirements — Chief Ombudsman; Appointments — Chief Ombudsman and Ombudsmen 
Franks Stephen: Retirements — Chief Ombudsman; Appointments — Chief Ombudsman and Ombudsmen 
[Volume:608;Page:5134] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 For ACT I also state our intention to support these three motions. In relation to Sir Brian Elwood a retirement of this kind gives pause for reflection on a disability we now suffer under in relation to the replacements. It is highly suitable that we can commend Sir Brian. On National Radio over the weekend I heard Sir Brian interviewed about how he saw public affairs and the term “sir” could be used. 
I went to the Office of the Ombudsmen immediately after Sir Guy Powles. Sir Guy had established that office with a reputation that could easily have gone the other way. We had imported a mechanism an office—even a description—from Scandinavia and the first appointment was absolutely critical to establishing its clout. Because it had a recommending and reporting role not a compulsion role that clout came not from the legal provisions but from the personal qualities of the people who have held that office. Sir Guy was followed by Sir George Laking who I am pleased to say is still alive at 90 and still following public affairs actively. I have had a message from him today and I was very proud to have served under Sir George. Then there was Mr Lester Castle and others all of whom have upheld the honour of that office. It makes me very sorry to think that if Mr Belgrave and Mel Smith managed to maintain that high standard they will not be recognised or addressed by the public in terms of a status and office description. We should be able to offer to our honoured high officials more than the simple term “commissioner”. I think the commission itself is enhanced by the expectation that a worthy performer gets an honorific such as “sir”. 
I want to turn now to the particular things that will mark the term in office of the two individuals that the motions relate to. After Sir Brian’s retirement they will have to continue with the very difficult task of presiding over a regime in relation to the Official Information Act that is now out of fashion. In the late 1970s—as sunlight is a disinfectant—freedom of information New Zealand’s version of the Official Information Act and the extension of the Ombudsman’s role in relation to it were seen as natural developments of Government. Openness is one of the prices we ought to pay for having a healthy modern civilisation but in the last 10 years we have suddenly turned that principle on its head. Privacy has become a value that now supplants openness and the matter in the report of the Officers of Parliament Committee typifies that. I hope that Mel Smith and Mr Belgrave will wholeheartedly defend the action being brought against them by the Ministry of Social Policy and Work and Income New Zealand. That is a classic example of the tension I have mentioned and it is one that is particularly important when there are two senior internal appointments. 
Effectively Mr Belgrave and Mr Smith are internal appointments. They have both worked for many years in the public service—unlike Sir Brian who came from outside and had a long time as a lawyer in general practice. He then had a long period in local government and so could be expected to approach Government and the exercise of executive power from the perspective of someone who at times must have been frustrated by it and who knew what it was like to feel a helpless citizen against not only city hall but the central State. I think there is a bit of concern that we are dealing with two nominees both of whom have been loyal diligent effective public servants but have not had notable experience of the other side. It is a note of warning but it is not saying that they will not perform. 
Crown Law is suing the Office of the Ombudsmen to try to prevent the implementation of a decision that the Department of Social Welfare should allow the Department for Courts the addresses of dud tenants so that court judgments against them can be enforced. That is a touchstone issue and I earnestly hope that both the new ombudsmen will see it as a cause that they should take up with all energy. That is particularly important because Mr Smith has spent time recently in the justice portfolio and has had a very active involvement in looking at what the courts have been doing. I hope his natural inclination is to make sure that the courts are just as effective as they possibly can be. 
A further concern is that sometimes when people are appointed at the end of very long and successful careers and do not have reasonable assurance of their terms there is a possibility of too much power being preserved or too little independence. Maybe someone from the Officers of Parliament Committee can clarify that issue as I am not sure whether there is any formal or informal understanding about the length of term of these appointments. Certainly we got very good value from some of those people for a long time after their appointments. I hope it is not anticipated that there will be a regular and short-term turnover of those very important officers when they prove to be as good as some of the ones we have had—in particular Sir Brian Elwood.