Monday, 1 October marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of Ombudsman in New Zealand.
The Office provides Parliament and the New Zealand public with an independent and impartial check on the quality, fairness and integrity of administrative practices in the state sector.
We can proudly say that we were the first English speaking country to set up such an office, albeit long after the concept was first developed in Sweden in the nineteenth century.
It is a critical mechanism for ensuring the accountability of elected and non-elected public officials to the broader public.
Since 1962 its role has been extended to cover Local Government; the provision of official information on the principle that this should be publically disclosed unless there is a good reason specified for withholding it; and support for whistle-blowers who follow a specified procedure.
The Ombudsman’s Office has undoubtedly enhanced the quality of our democracy, and traditionally has received bipartisan support.
Sadly, on its 50th Anniversary, the office has more recently come under threat from a Government which has deliberately set out to limit and undermine its effectiveness.
A partisan statement?
No. Concern about Government actions come from the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverly Wakem, herself.
Dame Beverley is a formidable woman, determinedly independent and with an impressive track record.
Most recently, she warned of “highly dangerous” moves by the Government to keep information secret by drafting laws to avoid the Official Information Act (OIA).
She highlighted “reprehensible” attempts to remove from the Act state assets where there are partial share sales, charter schools and change to mining permits.
Earlier this year, Dame Beverly told a Parliamentary Select Committee that the Office was “in crisis.” An inadequate budget was incapable of meeting the Ombudsman’s work load, justice was being denied, and starving her Office of funding prevented the Office from ensuring that government spending was of high quality.
One reason for the Office’s excessive work load is the increasing arrogance of power by Ministers who deliberately ignore the legal requirements on them to disclose information under the OIA, and the Ombudsman has to be called in to put pressure on them.
Murray McCully is a prime culprit. The Auditor General revealed that he failed to meet the deadline for OIA requests on over 50% of the requests.
I have in front of him a number of requests that remain unanswered months after he was legally obliged to do so.
He was the only Minister to withhold Treasury budget information on his Ministerial portfolio and withheld two thirds of the briefing to him as an incoming Minister.
It’s absolute arrogance from a Minister who is a control freak who refuses to subject his performance to scrutiny and to be held accountable.
Little wonder when you consider the botched job he did on restructuring his Ministry.
Sadly, on its 50th Anniversary, the office has more recently come under threat from a Government which has deliberately set out to limit and undermine its effectiveness.
Yes, and it fits in with this government’s lack of honesty, lack of transparency, lack of proper oversight and perhaps most important of all… lack of accountability.
Thank-you Phil for a courageous post – a damming indictment on this National/ACT government.
HI ANNE !!!!!
!!!!!!!
Hello Spud. Thought you’d gone awol.
Reckon Phil Goff’s got it sussed? I do.
Hi Phil!
That sucks! 
!!!!!
!!!!!!
Dem secrets are scary
Withholding information requested not good!
@Anne, I had gone awol,
, but I’m back! 
!!!!
Phil has it sussed, he’s a good guy!
NZ has suffered from systemic incompetence by successive Governments we need someone to keep an eye on them.
The country is being sold down the drain at present, try buying a house in Auckland these days, good luck to you if you can outbid the Asian buyers.
We will be tennants in our own country faster than anyone thinks.
Jack, thanks in part to Len Brown keeping the cost of land high to encourage everybody else to live next to a railway station. When he moves to a railway apartment, I will be more impressed. But I dont think they will have parking for his council supplied car.
…and WHERE was the media coverage on television tonight of this very serious issue??
Has our media completely checked out?
How effective can a democracy be when our information sources do not relay the most important news of the day?
I would like to see some of the money that the tax payer is providing going into informing us of things we very much need to know.
This lack of coverage is absolutely unacceptable.
I appears the Press is being tightly controlled by this Government TVNZ is Government controlled and Simon Joyce has a close relationship with TV3 and Mediaworks.
The Press have had a big influence over the past 2 Elections in NZ, they buried Winston Peters prior to the 2008 Election and basically told voters that National was a done deal at the 2011 Election with 1.0 million people not voting.
The people that do not vote are generally from the lower socio economic sections of the economy.
New Zealand deserves what it gets.
One Track it is all very well blaming len Brown for Auckland’s housing problems however it was Jim Bolgers Asian investment schemes which is driving Auckland housing prices up and the Government tax breaks which are available to property investors.
Also the management of the Super City were selected via Magnum Consulting which has links to the National Party.
Unbelievable. This would be a very dangerous thing to do. Especially for the insurance sector. No checks and balances!
Tanya – I think you are reading more into the headline than the actual story, the Chief Ombudsman is complaining about having not enough money (but I do note it is never stated that the budget has been cut, just that it is inadequate),and that ministers have been trying to sidestep OIA requirements (daft, National should have learned from Labour’s poorly written legislations that it’s a stupid thing to do, not bloody repeat it).
I’m not sure I would consider the media under control of government, that’s a slightly extreme view (and I have seen Nats skewered in the media a couple of times lately, surely National didn’t plan that as a red herring).
Is it not more likely a function of the fact that people who would benefit from seeing the information and learning a bit more about how things are going just aren’t interested (thus show directors/editors react to show them what they want to see)?
Rob S
I think it is you reading too much into the headline.
Perhaps the Ombudsman wants more funding, however she wouldn’t tell porkies in order to get them. It wouldn’t be worth losing her job over. Mr Key and Banks are clearly able to keep their jobs while providing honesty-challenged statements to the public, however I fail to think there are many public servants who would enjoy the same privilege; especially when they are speaking out against the corruption of this government.
The only report i have seen relaying this information is the Herald’s online version. I don’t know whether the online articles are printed or not? Other than that TV media don’t appear to see this as important information to relay.
The public “Just aren’t interested”?
I don’t think this information is uninteresting; certainly no less so than the murder investigation, road works and Dot.Com activities that were reported on the day this information came out.
There are certainly not many people in NZ whose best interests it serves to withhold this information.
What interests does it serve you in being an apologist for an unacceptable level of [non]reporting of important events?
I’m didn’t really see it as being apologistic, more realistic.
The reason we have such fluffy news programmes is people just don’t seem to be interested (wider audience than this, it is abundantly clear that you are!).
I remember around the turn of the millenium TV1 ran a poll to find out what people thought was the worst thing to happen in the last 100 years. Believe it or not the loss to France in the rugby world cup rated as worse than the Tangiwai disaster… I don’t think things have got much better.
You’ll get no argument from me that people SHOULD be interested, but how do you force people to take it in?
You also misread what I was saying. I read Tanya’s response as closing the Ombudsmans office as being a very dangerous thing for the insurance sector. It isn’t even mentioned anywhere… I never suggested the chief ombudsman lied, I was questioning that it was a result of a funding change, maybe she thinks they have ALWAYS been underfunded.
Rob S
Thanks for your explanation. I accept that political interest could be higher in this country, yet I suggest that you take care on swallowing hook, line and sinker the meme that there is no concern among New Zealanders over the most newsworthy events occurring in the country.
You appear to be suggesting that the News would gain higher ratings if it was full of rugby results? Perhaps this is exactly what our TV stations should do. At least then people wouldn’t be mistakenly viewing News programmes under the mistaken belief that they were being informed of the most newsworthy events of the day.
Its not realistic to base ones views on a poll conducted by a television station. This type of poll involves only who happens to be watching at the time. It is important also to know how the question was couched and what programme the poll was conducted on to gain a better understanding of what these results really indicate.
I suggest a poll question couched “Would you like your news programmes to provide you with the most important happenings of the day in New Zealand or would you prefer to be provided with the latest corporate propaganda?” might gain a different outcome.
It is realistic to assume that those who switch on a News programmes are doing so with a desire to know what events of the most significance are occurring in the country for the day. It is a false conclusion to draw that because of one television poll that NZers who switch on News programs would be more interested in, say, rugby results than being informed that our ombudsman is concerned enough to give a warning regarding our Government’s activities in trying to bypass the official information act with regard to a number of the major issues that are currently topical in NZ.
I was more suggesting that the evening news is already full of fluff, rather than it should be more like that.
It just happened to be one that supported my argument. I would have been typing all day to put everything in there.
Thanks Rob, but I did read the whole thing. I have worked in the insurance sector, and believe me, this is an area that needs an independent watchdog.
Rob says?