Eagle Paul; Dyson RuthPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Madam Speaker and it's a pleasure to be the last speaker in what could be my last speech in the House too for this year. But you never know—you're in such hot demand these days and I might be back tomorrow. What I can say is merry Christmas to you all on all sides of the House and a happy New Year.I am pleased to talk on this bill because as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee we did do some work on this in terms of looking carefully at really the integrity of the name and that was really the impetus for a lot of the submissions and the conversation that the select committee undertook. We wanted to ensure that the name ombudsman"—and we certainly had lots of conversation locally and influence globally internationally from others who use the name. In fact it was an educational lesson at that because some felt that it could be more inclusive—that's a better way of saying it—and so we explored how the name could be more inclusive or whether that was going to be contradictory in terms of people understanding what an ombudsman's role actually does.So point two there is seeking clarity and you know I always believe that it doesn't matter what the politics of some of this stuff is about; what matters really is that we get clarity. So for those who maybe want to use the name for their organisation or their entity in the future now it becomes really clear to them why they can't. So the select committee spent quite some time working through that process to avoid point three—and it's pretty obvious—which is the confusion that that causes. We'll see here in the bill that those that are already using it—the Banking Ombudsman and the Insurance & Financial Services Ombudsman—will retain the use of that title but it will provide clarity for those who intend to use it but will not be allowed to.So I think there was no waste of time here. We didn't spend a long time on it. We spent quality time on it making sure that that was understood and the submissions were robust I thought for something that seemed to be minor. Many people had put a lot of thought into it because the name carries some status and when we looked overseas certainly some jurisdictions had the name used in all sorts of ways and much more than I had ever thought but certainly the rigour that we will apply by having this piece of legislation in place will be a lot stricter than in other jurisdictions where people can just really self-appoint and there was certainly a desire to ensure that that does not happen and did not happen or it wasn't able to easily happen without there being some clarity. So this is important and I know that the Chief Ombudsman himself was very keen to make sure that we certainly got this right and progressed this to its finishing point so that he can move forward with his entity and expand on the brief that he undertakes with that integrity and clarity of role.I do want to thank the select committee for their work. I see that there is a view from the other side in there. I think those are strong words but actually the members on the committee were—I wouldn't say that was accurate from them. I would say that they were supportive of the process as such and therefore I think that this is a good piece of work to bring to its conclusion and I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I put the vote I just want to apologise to the Labour chief whip. I omitted to call Lawrence Yule for the remainder of his speech. Fortunately Michael Wood took the call but I apologise for that error."