Little AndrewOMBUDSMEN (PROTECTION OF NAME) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.This is a very simple bill. It does a very simple job which is to protect the value—the mana you might say—of the name of our Ombudsmen. It does so because even though there is a provision in the current legislation that allows others to apply for the use of the name ombudsman"—and it tends to be in dispute resolution type of services—there was a recent Court of Appeal decision that effectively said that because permission has been granted to two outfits to use the name "ombudsman" therefore any decisions by the Chief Ombudsman to allow the use of that name in the future have to take into account the market advantage the current licensees if you like of that name have. It is in a sense contradictory to the prima facie prohibition contained in the current legislation on the use of the name "ombudsman" without the permission of the Chief Ombudsman.So this bill is about protecting the integrity of that name and I'm going to come to shortly what that is actually about. But it is about recognising that the Office of the Ombudsman holds a very important and special place in our constitutional framework and our Public Service framework because they are the kind of go-to people when somebody has a complaint or an issue about the conduct or the service that they have or have not received from a Public Service.The name goes back 200 or 300 years apparently. It originates from Sweden I understand. It means in its original language champion for the people or advocate for the people—which is what an ombudsman actually is. It is a person who you can go to for not necessarily low-level but reasonably good advice and a mediatory approach to resolve your problems.Before I go any further can I thank the members of the Governance and Administration Committee who took the submissions on this bill. That select committee received 11 submissions and six of the submitters spoke to their submission. The submitters engaged with the bill very well. I'm pleased to say that the committee has taken one consideration on board and recommended a helpful change to the bill. In that respect the select committee has recommended clarifying the scope of the savings provision of the bill which allows two existing private sector entities—the Banking Ombudsman Scheme Ltd and Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme Inc.—to continue to use the word "ombudsman" in their names; they were granted permission to use the name some time ago and they will continue to use it. What the select committee has recommended is a form of words that means that if all those entities do is change their corporate structure they continue to use the name but if they sell themselves or you know they want to get out of the business then they can't transfer that name. It applies to the entities in whatever corporate structure they feel that currently have the rights to use the name.As highlighted during the first reading the bill makes important changes to uphold that public confidence in this very important public role. As I say the name is meant to be protected but as a result of two decisions taken by previous Chief Ombudsmen and now this Court of Appeal decision—that in my view has distorted the intention of the original provision in the Act and turned it into sort of a presumption that permission to use the name will be granted. Whereas actually the presumption is meant to be the other way and it doesn't matter if two have got it and other people apply for it and don't get it—that should not be a relevant consideration.The easiest way to deal with that is simply to say it's not going to be used—the name is not going to be used—and it should not be left up to the Chief Ombudsman to be making that decision. So what it will do is effectively come back to the Minister of Justice who is responsible for the ombudsmen legislation to make any future decision about that. So the name is now restricted. It can only be used by a parliamentary Ombudsman appointed under the Ombudsmen Act or a person appointed to a position established by the Chief Ombudsman such as an assistant or deputy ombudsman or a public sector department or organisation approved by the Minister of Justice. So it will retain its Public Service sort of ethos that goes round the role. As mentioned the bill includes a savings provision for two existing entities. They've got the name. They've used them for a while. We're not going to take that away. But that is it—that will be it. In future only public entities can use the name. It includes a savings provision in respect of the private sector entity Financial Services Complaints Ltd. That entity had an application to use the name. It had been knocked back once. They went to court. That led to the Court of Appeal decision. Their right to continue that application is allowed but that is it. That is the right that is preserved for them because up to that point they in fact had not been granted permission to use the name but the Chief Ombudsman must consider that application in any event. I've laid out the importance of the role why it is important and I just think it is important—the two private entities that use the name the reality is that I get variable commentary about the quality of the service they get. They do not operate to the quality of our Ombudsmen—the genuine public Ombudsmen—and I think it is important given the totemic role that that office plays as a safety valve as a place where people can go when they are aggrieved by the conduct of anything in the public sector that the status of that office and that role of Ombudsmen be maintained. That's what this bill seeks to do. So on that note this bill will continue to signify the uniqueness of the parliamentary Ombudsmen and therefore uphold public confidence and understanding in it and on that basis I commend the bill to the House."