Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this
I move, That, pursuant to section 8 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975, this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Melwyn Purefoy Smith, of Wellington, as an additional Ombudsman for a period of 6 months. A request was made to the Officers of Parliament Committee by the Chief Ombudsman for the appointment of Mel Smith for a 6-month period, and the committee was satisfied that the reasons were appropriate in this particular case. Mel Smith has served previously consecutive periods totalling 3½ years and 2 years as an Ombudsman, and previously gave distinguished service in the public sector. He is clearly highly qualified to fill this temporary position in the Ombudsmen’s office.
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) Link to this
Mr Mel Smith was first appointed an Ombudsman in December 2001 and then reappointed for a 2-year period in June 2003. I spoke on his reappointment on 31 March 2005, which expired in December 2005, and today National has pleasure in supporting the appointment of Mr Smith as an additional Ombudsman for 6 months. The demands on the Ombudsmen’s office are increasing. It is interesting to note that they currently have 1,040 files, which are live files, and possibly the office should be looking at the appointment of a third full-time Ombudsman. It is important that this appointment be made now, and I understand that Mr Smith could start next Monday on 11 December. National acknowledges the past commitment of Mr Smith, and his expertise and experience necessary for this office. We are, indeed, indebted to his availability at this time. National has much pleasure in supporting Mr Smith’s appointment.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
New Zealand First endorses all those comments. We have had close liaison and discussions with Mr Smith over the last few years. We find him an affable man, a very competent man; he is very conscientious; he is very determined to get to the bottom of a particular issue, and we cannot speak highly enough of Mr Smith. We would welcome him being an Ombudsman on a permanent basis, but we endorse all the comments that have gone before.
KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
The Green Party supports the appointment of Mel Smith. He has a distinguished record not only in his previous work as an Ombudsman but in the justice system and looking at prison conditions, which is a major part of the Ombudsmen’s duties. That has developed a bit since the recent passing in the House of the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill, which has appointed the Ombudsmen’s office as one of the national preventive mechanisms under the international arrangements and treaties to look at any torture or ill-treatment in our prisons. I think he would be well suited to be part of doing the Ombudsmen’s work in that area. I indicate the importance of the procedure we are going through now of having an appointment made by the House rather than by the executive branch. It does reinforce the independence of the Ombudsmen’s office, and it was one of the features in the discussion on the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill that the national preventive mechanisms should be fully independent from the executive, and should be responsible primarily to Parliament.
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this
On behalf of United Future I too want to support the appointment of Mel Smith as a temporary Ombudsman for the third time. He has performed with distinction on two previous occasions. I have had the privilege of working with him in both those roles, and also in his earlier career as a public servant. Mel Smith is one of New Zealand’s finest in every respect and he will bring great distinction to this office, albeit for the short period of his appointment.
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
I would like to support the motion to appoint Melwyn Smith as the additional Ombudsman, Kaitiaki Mana Tangata for Aotearoa. The distinctive role that the Ombudsman plays in our community was brought home to me in various roles that I have played in chairing Māori cultural committees in prisons, sitting on review committees on security within prisons, and, of course, as a member of Parliament through complaints received. The role of being at the receiving end of complaints is an incredibly challenging role, with the Office of the Ombudsman receiving up to 6,000 complaints a year. It is a role that is disproportionate but absolutely vital for the protection and safeguarding of indigenous rights. If one needed any evidence why, one has only to look at the raft of reports that we, the Māori Party, have presented in this House, which describe the status of Māori people in all spheres.
Earlier this year the United States departmental report on human rights practices in New Zealand was issued by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour. The human rights report listed the following issues under prison and detention centre conditions as occurring during the 12-month period ended June 2005. Prison overcrowding was a problem, juveniles spent more than 600 detention nights in police cells, 11 inmates from Pāremoremo prison behaviour management regime were awarded compensation for breaches of their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and management failings in the “goon squad” allowed the unit to develop an inappropriate militaristic culture. The report concluded that Aotearoa was in particularly bad shape as a result of the disproportionate societal problems for indigenous people. This is the bread and butter work that our Ombudsmen are faced with, day in, day out.
We know, as well, that there are many and varied reasons why a person would go to the Office of the Ombudsman for support, and there are many examples where the Ombudsman has investigated complaints on behalf of Māoriwānanga and so on. Kahungunu academic Moana Jackson suggested that the Ombudsmen could be both an appeal body and Ombudsmen for Māori in their dealings with the police. As well as that, the Ombudsman will deal with Māori in the context of school boards, trustees, tertiary students, social service agencies, and any number of Government organisations, of any nature.
I do come as a bearer of good news, though. When I started preparing for the debate my research took me to the report of the Ombudsman for the year ended 30 June 2006. In the very first section of that report—indeed, the editorial—it states: “It is very pleasing to note that the office is at last making some substantive progress in developing our ongoing interface with Māori. We have received strong support from a number of Māori organisations. We are attempting as opportunity permits to make formal Marae visits to be followed up by informal advice and discussion with individual Māori on matters of concern.”
The focus that the Ombudsman’s office promotes is not about power over anything, or control at all costs. The emphasis is on ensuring that the office is not an alien institution—another agency that helps those who already know how to get help, while excluding those who do not. This is an office with a difference—an office of the State that seems to genuinely care about the way in which it can relate to a diverse range of New Zealanders.
The Māori Party is happy to endorse the appointment of Melwyn Smith on two counts: firstly, transparency and accountability. Melwyn Smith’s track record is that it was his view that to ensure the public confidence in any changes arising from the Auditor-General’s report on unlawful advertising expenditure last election, the review job should be given to an independent body. His responsiveness to Māori is second to none, and this aspect has encouraged us to look favourably at his appointment. There is the commitment of the Chief Ombudsman, John Belgrave, and the movements made within the office to demonstrate strategic support, and the longstanding involvement that Mr Smith himself is associated with in Māori affairs. We have much pleasure in supporting this appointment.