50 Years of the Ombudsman in New Zealand
Reception in the Grand Hall, Parliament Buildings, Wellington, 2 October 2012
Remarks by the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem DNZM, CBE
Good evening and welcome to this celebration of the establishment of the Office of the
Ombudsman 50 years ago.
Mr Speaker, members of the judiciary (past and present) parliamentarians, distinguished guests,
former Ombudsmen – Sir Brian Elwood, Sir Anand Satyanand, Nadja Tollemache, Mel Smith and
Sue Richards, family members of the late Sir Guy Powles, Eaton Hurley, Sir George Laking and Sir
John Robertson, former and present staff of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Our thanks to Dr the Right Honourable Lockwood Smith for hosting this reception – fittingly, as
we are Officers of Parliament. We report to Dr Smith as Speaker of the House, and he chairs the
multi-party Officers of Parliament Committee which has responsibility for supporting the office.
A Canadian judge characterised the work of the Ombudsman in this way:
“An Ombudsman brings the lamp of scrutiny to otherwise dark places even over the
resistance of those who would draw the blinds.”
The late Sir John Marshall, however, noted some of the challenges to be overcome in pursuit of
this goal, when he said:
“There is nothing quite so impenetrable as a government department with something
to hide, and nothing quite so inscrutable as an experienced minister on the defensive”.
Looking back over the past fifty years, it’s very clear that we were blessed in the choice of the
first Ombudsman – Sir Guy Powles – barrister, soldier, administrator and diplomat. He said, of
his new role, that:
“...The Ombudsman is generally a person of prestige and influence, who must operate
with the characteristics of objectivity, efficiency, fairness and compassion... Perhaps
one could say that the Ombudsman is the sling in the hands of the legislative David
with which to shoot at, and perhaps occasionally to wound or even bring down, the
great goliath of bureaucracy.”
As Brian Gilling noted in his history of the office, Sir Guy’s allegiance to Parliament was
unswerving.
Sir Guy went on to say that:
“...the Ombudsman is a tool. He is a very valuable tool in the hands of Parliament in
order to probe into the administration, to search out what the administration is doing,
Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata
Page 2
to find out whether the administration is honestly and effectively administering the
laws of Parliament.”
He was described by others as:
“...a man of great personal dignity combined with a quiet charm, a touch of reserve
and sometimes a nice sense of humour ... his personal standing in New Zealand was
deservedly high.”
John Robson, Secretary of Justice at the time (and himself a great public servant) observed that
Sir Guy was skilful and adroit in handling the media and he succeeded in projecting an image of a
person who cared for people and who would expose injustice. There is little doubt, he said, that
he was an outstanding success, especially in areas where there was need for more sensitivity,
fairness and humanity.
Sir Guy’s reputation and his handling of the office brought great international interest and he was
much in demand, and ever helpful, in advising on this constitutional innovation. Thus New
Zealand’s legislation became the “gold standard” in the foundation of many other offices around
the world, particularly in countries with a common law jurisdiction and under a system of
parliamentary government based on the Westminster model.
Both Sir John Robertson and Sir Brian Elwood in their turn played an active part in helping to
establish other offices around the world and both became President of the International
Ombudsman Institute (a position which I currently also hold). It is a tribute to the capability of
the office that it has been recognised in this way.
There is no doubt that the way in which successive office holders have articulated the role, has
contributed to the New Zealand office being seen as innovative and a leader in new
developments.
We should not underestimate the importance of this office beyond the obvious goal of achieving
“fairness for all.” Internationally, there is an increasing awareness that countries with an
Ombudsman and a robust system of access to information are safe havens for investment.
Their governments and regulatory framework are more likely to be conducive to doing business
because it is done in the light of day, so to speak. Many of the delegations we host want to know
how and why the Ombudsman role works so well here and they acknowledge the part the
institution plays in maintaining New Zealand’s reputation for equity, justice and a lack of
corruption.
Within New Zealand the office has established a firm reputation for fairness, objectivity and
compassion. Its relationships with the state sector are characterised by a high level of trust and
integrity on both sides. So its recommendatory powers rarely need to be used.
Whilst we stand on the firm foundation that our predecessors have established, we are looking at
the next 50 years and, in our own right, seeking to become more proactive, agile and
approachable; to use our ‘own motion’ powers to better effect to help agencies establish more
effective administrative practices, better complaints handling; and, through training, to increase
Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata
Page 3
understanding of the principal Acts and better compliance with them. We have overhauled our
own working methods to achieve earlier and more informal resolution of complaints and we are
having success with this, increasing our throughput by 13% despite the increased number of
complaints we’re currently fielding. We’re also mindful of the need to reduce the transactional
cost of doing business with us.
Our goal, as always, is to increase trust in government and improve administrative justice and
procedural fairness and we need to be sure we’re modelling that behaviour ourselves.
Above all, as Sir Guy put it:
“The Ombudsman is Parliament’s man, put there for the protection of the individual,
and if you protect the individual you protect society. I shall look for reason, justice,
sympathy and honour and if I don’t find them I shall report accordingly”.
And we’ll go on trying to articulate that prescription for the next 50 years.