Penk Chris; Sepuloni CarmelCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. May I start by saying that I don't appreciate the Minister's mischaracterisation of my interrogation of the legislation last night in the committee of the whole House stage. A diligent member of Parliament takes this opportunity to tease out issues in the legislation and to represent me highlighting the fact that accountability and independence should be weighed in the balance—they're competing considerations to some extent—seeking to reconcile them inviting the Minister's comment and to misrepresent that as somehow arguing in favour of more or less independence than my colleagues I find rather well—Simeon Brown: Shameful.CHRIS PENK: I'll just say irritating; we won't go further than that. As for the point regarding reports not needing to be made any more frequently than three years—and the Minister says Well that's the minimum requirement". That's my point. I pointed out that it was a minimum requirement; it could be as much as three years. Of course it could be less. It could be three days it could be three months it could be three whatever—whatever intervals that might be used. I can't think of any others of course; I've gone general on it but that's the whole point. This is a very serious matter. I presume the Minister agrees and no doubt that she's trying her best not only to get most of the sector off-side but her best to actually do the right thing. I presume she's trying to. I did presume until such time as she actually doesn't seem to take seriously reasonable questions about accountability mechanisms within the bill. This is the whole thing. The whole thing is about accountability. The whole thing is about transparency. Yes independence is an important value but so too is the need for those who are involved in the system those who are not involved in the system but would critique and monitor it and most importantly those who are so deeply affected by the system as to have their rights and freedoms curtailed by the system. It's important on all their behalf that we take these questions seriously we ask these questions we answer these questions and we don't belittle these questions. So I will take the opportunity to ask some serious questions in good faith about some aspects of Part 2 that I think are interesting and important. I hope the Minister shares my view that they're interesting and important whatever substantive view she might have in terms of how those should be answered. So my question is in relation to the role of the Ombudsman. We see in Subpart 2 of Part 2 that the purpose of the subpart is to provide the Ombudsman with additional duties and powers when dealing with matters that fall under the Ombudsmen Act 1975. These relate to services and support delivered by Oranga Tamariki—or OT as it's commonly known—or care or custody providers. So that seems helpful actually just to throw a bouquet out there. It seems helpful that the Ombudsman who is an officer of Parliament who has a role to provide some accountability through this House we know effectively—I suppose one might say on behalf of the House. I don't know that I've framed it particularly well but roughly speaking it's a positive thing that we have someone who is part of the arrangements of the State but not part of the Government of the day not part of the executive even. It's part of Parliament which is technically separate has got some accountability mechanism there.So notwithstanding that that many people who have commented on the bill are dismayed or at the very least questioning but many are dismayed at the changing in responsibilities in relation to the Children's Commissioner. This at least so far as it goes might be said to add an element of accountability. So that's fine. My question is in terms of not only complaints and investigations that might be initiated by others if the Minister sees a role for the Ombudsman in maybe initiating matters of inquiry. Of course the Ombudsman has a role in relation to our prisons so obviously a different kind of context but at a level similar in the sense that people's freedoms of movement and so on are being constrained by the State—pretty serious matter. So I just wonder if the Minister can explain how she would see circumstances in which the Ombudsman could actually initiate investigations into how OT is using its powers. I look forward to that. I think that would be helpful not only for the purpose of the committee and I sense the Minister's ready to answer that question so I'll simply resume my seat and say that I look forward to it.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes and I will also mention that a number of complaints received from the Children's Commission in recent years have been sent over to the Ombudsman because they do have the power and functions to be able to receive those complaints. Many of the complaints—and I've spoken to the Ombudsman about this—have been able to be resolved without getting to the point of inquiry. However absolutely if they are not able to be resolved easily then they can be escalated to an inquiry. This is not a new function for the Ombudsman. However the bill in front of us provides much greater clarity with regards to the Ombudsman complaints and his ability to be able to receive those."